From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Hemeda v. Sbarro Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 20, 2001
289 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

87723

December 20, 2001.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 7, 2000, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accident in the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits.

El-Sayed Aly Hemeda, Bayonne, New Jersey, appellant pro se.

Jones, Jones, Larkin O'Connell (David Sanua of counsel), New York City, for Sbarro Inc. and another, respondents.

Before: Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Based upon allegations that he had been assaulted at work by his supervisor, claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. At the hearing, claimant and his supervisor, who were the only persons present at the place and time of the alleged assault, presented conflicting versions of the incident, with the supervisor denying that he assaulted claimant. The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that claimant's testimony was not believable and denied his claim. Claimant appeals.

Initially, we reject the argument of the employer and its workers' compensation carrier that claimant's appeal to this Court was untimely. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the Board is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses, we reject claimant's contention that the Board erred in crediting the testimony of the supervisor and finding that claimant's testimony was not credible (see, Matter of Owens v. Village of Ellenville Police Dept., 280 A.D.2d 786, 787; Matter of Altman v. Hazen Import Corp., 198 A.D.2d 674, 675). Claimant's remaining argument concerning the accuracy of the interpreter's translation of claimant's testimony was not raised before the Board and will not be considered for the first time on this appeal (see, Matter of Gregg v. Randazzo, 216 A.D.2d 747). Because it is supported by substantial evidence, the decision of the Board will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Hernandez v. National Mgmt. Consultants, 284 A.D.2d 611).

Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Hemeda v. Sbarro Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 20, 2001
289 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In re Hemeda v. Sbarro Inc.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF EL-SAYED ALY HEMEDA, Appellant, v. SBARRO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 20, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 513

Citing Cases

Claim of Huang Sheng Ku v. Dana Alexander, Inc.

Claimant's remaining argument — that she was denied due process by the failure of the Board to provide her…

In the Matter of Mulligan

Given the foregoing evidence, the determination that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market is…